Letters to the Editor

An item in your Colleges Column (Education Week, Jan. 26, 1983),
notes that the number of heavy drinkers "rose from 11.6 percent in 1974
to 17.2 percent in 1982." This increase is described as rising
"somewhat."

The "somewhat" increase measures 48.28 percent, a rather startling
increase, I feel. Why has it happened? What is being done about it? Or,
since it is described as only "somewhat" of an increase, doesn't the
48-percent increase matter to Education Week?

Dorland R. Russett Crestwood, N.Y.

Editor's note: The increase can be seen as moderate, says David J.
Hanson, associate professor of sociology at the State University of New
York at Potsdam and one of the two researchers who conducted the study,
"compared to the expectations of people--especially college
administrators--that the rise would be far more dramatic."

Mr. Hanson, who worked with Ruth C. Engs of Indiana University on
the longitudinal survey of the drinking habits of college students,
also notes that "good" data exist suggesting that heavy drinking in
college is not predictive of later adult behavior. College, he adds,
may be in some sense a "time-out" period in which young adults feel
free to experiment with kinds of behavior they will later reject.

To the Editor:

Fred L. Pincus has written a provocative attack on seasoned civil
libertarians like Nat Hentoff, and thereby displayed a perverse
misunderstanding of the meaning of civil liberties and an
all-too-common blindness about the nature of public schooling
("Censorship in the Name of Civil Rights: A View From the Left,"
Education Week, Jan. 26, 1983).

Mr. Pincus is correct in concluding that educators "should not wrap
themselves in a mantle of moderation to protect themselves from
'extremists of the Left."' But neither should educators be wrapped in
the bland garb of good community morals. To be so avoids acknowledging
that majority control of education always produces minorities whose
lives and values are degraded by schooling that they neither choose nor
influence.

Mr. Pincus's contention appears to be that pressure on public-school
curricula and libraries is lamentable when it comes from the Right's
treasury of troglodytic values, but healthy when it comes from those
who favor race and gender equality. The New Right engages in
"censorship" on behalf of "white supremacy, male domination, religious
ethnocentrism, and knee-jerk patriotism," whereas the same actions by
feminist and anti-racist groups are "criticisms and suggestions" that
should be encouraged and honestly evaluated by those in charge of the
schools.

According to Mr. Pincus, representatives of the American Library
Association and the National Council of Teachers of English arrived at
the "outrageous conclusion" that objecting to race and gender
stereotypes is as bad as objecting to the discussion of sex and drugs
in the classroom.

But Mr. Pincus cannot defend his claim that one pressure on the
curriculum and the library is worse than another by claiming that one
side's values are correct. There is a multitude of differing,
articulate, and sincerely held beliefs and world views that motivate
these pressures.

One might be tempted simply to smile at a transparent attempt to
legitimize the "good" values and belittle the "bad," especially where,
as in Mr. Pincus's Commentary, the good and bad have been "correctly"
identified. But this wry smile may turn to a grimace upon seeing the
hatchet job Mr. Pincus does on freedom of intellect and belief.

For it is impossible to secure liberty to some and deny it to others
without making a mockery of our system of freedom of expression. Those
who place a high value on intellectual freedom should resist the
efforts of the Right to use the school system as a coercible tool of
indoctrination, but with no more vigor than they employ in resisting
pressures from those whose values they share.

The source of the controversy over which values should be endorsed
by the nation's schools is embedded in the nature of the public-school
system itself.

Education policy in this country is determined by political
majorities. But under the Constitution, an individual's freedoms of
expression and belief may not be made to depend upon the support of the
majority. So, while a parent's choice of how his or her child will be
educated represents one of the most central exercises of freedom of
expression, it is transgressed by the concept of majority rule that
operates in education policymaking.

As a result, Left- and Right-leaning parents do battle over the
content of curricula and libraries. But the primary victims of public
education's rejection of individual liberties are the poor and racial
minorities, who usually cannot afford to send their children elsewhere.
This is the real injustice of censorship that the advocates of racial
justice and gender equality must face.

New Right censorship is the predominant and most intolerant form of
pressure on schools now. But none of us should imagine that moderation
and pluralism can be achieved while we force compulsory socialization
on the poor and working classes and while we guarantee liberty in our
most intimate form of communication--child-rearing--to the rich.

If those who believe that racism is the most corrosive and degrading
of America's problems cannot struggle toward its elimination without
trashing the system of freedom of expression, we are destroying our own
cause.

Stephen Arons Associate Professor of Legal Studies University of
Massachusetts/Amherst

To the Editor:

As a supporter of racial justice and feminism, I find Fred L.
Pincus's Commentary, "Censorship in the Name of Civil Rights: A View
From the Left," (Education Week, Jan. 26, 1983) frighteningly nave.

His argument that "the 'Left censors' are correct in their
criticisms of the schools" and therefore should be given consideration
denied to critics of the schools who are concerned about "frank
discussion of drugs and sex" in Go Ask Alice, smacks of the old idea
that error has no rights.

What, he asks, are parents to do when they find that books that are
objectionable to them are considered "educationally sound" by the
"professionally trained"? I trust he realizes that this is a concern
that he shares with those he consigns to the New Right. If only those
who are "correct" are to be given the opportunity to appeal the
judgment of the professionals, who is to determine which side is
correct?

Schools teach values, whether they want to or not, and responsible
parents feel very deeply about the values that they want conveyed
through the school environment. The community also has a stake in the
values taught in the schools it supports. This entirely appropriate
parental and community concern inevitably will, from time to time, come
into conflict with the First Amendment idea that the government should
not limit the individual's freedom to read what he or she wants. The
conflict sharpens as we extend First Amendment rights to younger
children.

This kind of conflict does not lend itself to quick solutions based
on easy absolutes. In muddling through this tension between two
conflicting goods, we would do well to remember that in this society
disadvantaged groups usually have made their gains by insisting that
the laws be applied fairly to all groups. We do not need "solutions"
that provide to those we perceive as correct remedies that are not made
available to those we perceive as incorrect.

Loretta K. Andrews Baltimore, Md.

To the Editor:

A recent article on the fingerprinting of elementary-school children
in Union County, N.J., ("Police To Fingerprint 44,000 N.J. Children,''
Education Week, Jan. 26, 1983), gave the impression that this idea had
been widely accepted.

At a meeting with Sheriff Ralph Froehlich and Underchief John J.
Troiano on Jan. 21, 1983, the chief school administrators of Union
County did agree that the idea of fingerprinting school children might
have some merit. However, the following concerns were shared with
Sheriff Froehlich:

The manner in which the idea had been developed made it a
law-enforcement matter.

The questions of what would be included in the files and of who
would receive the fingerprints needed to be addressed. Consequently, it
was decided that a child's fingerprints would be given only to his or
her parents, to be filed in a place of their choice and used in case of
need.

To protect against violation of any child's rights, it was
recommended that fingerprinting be done on a Saturday or after school,
and that the procedure be worked out with school authorities.

We suggest that any future project involving schoolchildren on a
wholesale basis be developed in consultation with the school officials
who eventually must account to children, parents, and the community for
what happens to the children. Children are best served with extreme
care to their rights, interests, and well-being.

John T. Farinella President Union County Superintendents' Roundtable
and Superintendent of Schools Clark, N.J.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.